Someone could have said:

[omega minimo]

Someone could have said:

The reasons as presented WERE rather vague.

Someone could have said:

The problem for the solution has not been clearly stated.

Someone could have said:

The discussions about the upset over the supposed problem and reasons for the sudden solution have not been out in the open, so yes, some in the community are caught unawares.

Someone could have said:

Here's an idea of what the problems are, what the discussion has been, what the needs are, why the solution to this perceived problem is necessary.

Someone could have said:

Yes, this really has brought out a lot of reprehensible attitudes on DU.

Someone could have said:

Yes, those reprehensible attitudes and enthusiasm for a way to shut others down suggest this new feature may be misused.

Someone could have said:

Those who claim to speak for "the majority" on DU may be delusional, especially in conjunction with the abusive behavior they claim they'll engage in.

Someone could have said:

I may not agree, but I hear your concerns and here's what I think about it.

Someone could have said:

Yes, this was intended by Admin to emphasize "the topics that unite us, instead of those that divide us" and the opposite has been the immediate reaction by regular troublemakers.

Someone could have said:

The overarching goal will take care of those troublemakers, rather than pretending those troublemakers were legitimate voices for "the majority."

Someone could have said:

The objective here is an increase of quality and participation.

Someone could have said:

The immediate belligerent and intentionally disruptive reaction to this tool is beside the point.

Someone could have said:

The notion that there is some monolithic majority that somehow knows who all the in crowd is, is disturbing, un-Democratic, even in violation of DU Rules and mission statement.

Someone could have said:

It's okay to ask questions.

Someone could have said:

We are a community, not a competition.

Someone could have said:

Something.





"We do not expect that this will be a huge change for DU. But we do hope that it will put a little more emphasis on the topics that unite us, instead of those that divide us. Of course, you are still free to post discussion threads on highly polarizing topics. You just won't get the positive reinforcement of seeing them at the top of the Greatest Page."

[TexasObserver]

1. Someone could have said: Change is good, and it's about time.

Someone could have said: We've done it the other way a long time. Let's give this a try for a few months and see how it works.

[Laelth]

2. Wow. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

3. Thank you Laelth

I was about gonna have to say:

The only solution to this crud is a hair trigger Ignore list. :spray: :rofl:

[Laelth]

4. You are most welcome.

That took some courage, and it's beautifully done. What's most haunting about your OP is that it explains some of the causes of my own reaction to this change--causes of which I was previously unaware.

Thank you for that.

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

9. My pleasure

If we are anachronistic, out of time, beyond reason, marketing, miseducation, language, relevance, regard, so fuckin be it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. There's your solution. Skinner should put a checkbox in Your DU allowing you to automatically

ignore anyone who uses unrec.

Hair trigger enough for ya?

[omega minimo]

14. No

it would have to be everyone whose signs up to be an arrogant, ignorant, abusive asshole.

:hi:

[Greyhound]

5. Uh oh, +3, somebody better get on the email.

The (un)wrecking crew must be in bed.
:kick: & R

[omega minimo]

6. LOL

:spray: :rofl: :grouphug:

[leftstreet]

7. Wasn't this mostly to get negative Obama threads off the Greatest page?

If you've noticed lately, Greatest threads with the most votes are about Torture, CIA, Healthcare, Goldman Sachs etc. - but not much about Obama.

The people saying that Obama's (uh, can we still say fanclub?) will UnRec negative posts about Obama are probably right.

The trade off appears to be that threads critical of imperialist aggression and supportive of human rights will climb on the Greatest page.

And given that it's Democratic Underground and not Obama Underground, is that such a bad thing?

:shrug:

[Laelth]

15. If the purpose was to get negative Obama threads off the GP, I never heard that said.

Perhaps that was the purpose. I don't know. If that was the purpose, I am of the camp that says the left needs to hold Obama's feet to the fire. I think we must criticize him in order to give him cover, so that he can go to the blue dogs and say, with a straight face, that he's getting a lot of pressure from the left and that they are going to have to compromise--with the left, not with the Republicans.

Honestly, there's little we can do about imperialist aggression. We can, however, give Obama cover to do the right thing by criticizing him from the left. That seems much more useful to me.

This site is not, nor has it ever been, a propaganda outlet for the Party. We're liberals, pushing the party to do the right thing. We should criticize Obama and the Party when it is wrong, imho.

:dem:

-Laelth

[leftstreet]

29. Obama never needed cover from us

He's had more political capital than any other Prez in my lifetime. Nationally and internationally.

[omega minimo]

32. Many writers, journalists and advocates have said that he does. How could he not?

"Political capital"? Dubya's Big Lie? If he had so much capital, his actions and decisions would not appear to be so influenced by TPTB.

[leftstreet]

35. Well...what 'policital capital' do you think TPTB wanted him for?

To rephrase your own statement: He's had enough political capital that his actions and decisions don't appear to be influenced by TPTB.

I'm not knocking him.

He's great, he's terrific, he's the cat's meow.

But like most politicians, he's irrelevant.

[omega minimo]

39. Suggesting it's an illusion

that can't withstand pressure?

[leftstreet]

40. Okay, I get you

I see what you're saying.

Although, in my experience, the only pressure a politician will respond to has to do with getting reelected. And I'm not convinced Obama's interested in a 2nd term. So, there ya go.

[omega minimo]

43. I was hoping I "got you"

Your rephrase seemed to turn it around.... if I "got it."


The suggestion that's been made is that if Obama wanted to implement more progressive policies, he would need that public and Congressional pressure. FWIW, which is your point, it seems.

[leftstreet]

47. 'If Obama wanted to implement more progressive policies' - he would

He doesn't want to. (Or maybe he wants to but knows he can't, or whatever)

Obama really isn't the issue here, that's all I meant.

All politicians are distractions.

We need to return to our regularly scheduled peoples' revolution!

[omega minimo]

48. LOL

:rofl: Thank you. The Thought For The Day :spray:

[Laelth]

51. All politicians need cover. It's just very useful as a negotiating tool.

Evidently I am not understanding the point you are trying to make. Would you mind elaborating?

:dem:

-Laelth

[omega minimo]

31. Really good points

The only hints I got of specific complaints were some mention of "Obama bashers" and "Rec this thread if -------"

You hit it. Many top progressive and Democratic voices have said that Obama NEEDS US to nudge him, help him with support for policies that meet resistance from Repugs and DINOs.

I can understand if folks were upset about outright bashing and unfounded criticism. What I saw overwhelming the board, though, were threads complaining about "Obama bashing;" which didn't contain clear references to whatever they were talking about, which didn't seem evident on the board.... Were THOSE the unfounded claims, criticizing and bashing DUers for discussing legitimate concerns about early, major and irreversible actions by the O Administration?

So, if the chilling effect is courtesy of those who can't tell the difference or allow legitimate and respectful discourse, without emotional upset and false accusations, how is that an improvement?

This occurred at the moment that more and more DUErs who had been ardent Obama supporters were speaking up about their shifting opinions. With respect. And some regret.

That was inevitable, b/c he did not run as a left or progressive candidate, which one wouldn't dare say during the campaign.

IMHO part of the assumptions and groupthink on this is that those who think they're "the majority" assume that EVERYONE took up hardline sides prior to the election. Their perceived "enemy" is still someone who wasn't gung ho for Obama.

Now that, as you point out, some input and course correction from the public is relevant and needed -- even by President Obama and Democrats -- it is still verboten.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. Someone DID say:

"...you are still free to post discussion threads on highly polarizing topics. You just won't get the positive reinforcement of seeing them at the top of the Greatest Page."

Guess who that someone was?

[omega minimo]

11. You're so smart it must take a lot of energy to miss the point on purpose

:think:

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Who is this "SOMEONE" of whom you speak, and what makes you think you should be an arbiter

of what they say?

I missed your point. Completely.

Someone spoke. Someone instituted a change in the SOP. That Someone owns the court, and makes the rules as far as I can tell. If you don't like it, take your ball and go home.

[omega minimo]

17. Yes, you would have to read it to comprehend it

:hi:

[omega minimo]

25. It doesn't take an "arbiter" to say "someone" in general. Not "some one;" "Someone" from all in all

those threads, could have found some middle ground, rather than black and white, either/or.

The list is for someone, anyone amongst the multitude of posters, who could have said any of those things.

And didn't.

That's what's discouraging about this. Seeing how willing people are to take sides against each other.

It shouldn't be a surprise; however it was a new and explosive example of it, The tool brought it out and seemed potentially to foster it.

We'll see.

[countingbluecars]

27. LOL

opps I meant this as a reply to the OP.

[omega minimo]

12. Well let's see it was +2 2 seconds ago and down one, so I estimate, hmmmmmmm 17 Recs so far;

:shrug:

[Laelth]

18. I saw it at +5 about fifteen minutes ago. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Name removed]

Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

26. Dear Deleted Subthread. "17" was pulled out of the air, b/c no one has any idea what

< 0 really means.

[obliviously]

16. Way to say it omega!

You get an rec from me!

[Ken Burch]

19. The most eloquent proof of the validity of your OP is the large number of "unrecs" it has received

You've stood up to the bullies and they can't handle it.

[omega minimo]

20. LOL

Our common cause and "my" claim to fame. :grouphug:

[omega minimo]

21. ALL RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! WE'RE UP TO ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[omega minimo]

22. That's pretty good if ya bother to read through it but I'd UnRec b/c so many Greatest OPs

WHO THE FUCK IN HELL DOES S/HE THINK S/HE IS?

:evilfrown:

[FlyingSquirrel]

23. You won't get the positive reinforcement of seeing them at the top

of the Greatest Page...... Unless you represent the slim majority view on a controversial topic.

I notice that the first response to this thread is on my ignore list, which just now got reconstituted after a VERY long (for DU) time of relative peace.

[omega minimo]

24. Yep

I can't see it either and have also reluctantly resorted to liberal use of it, after last week's explosion of bully glee.

[scheming daemons]

28. Are you kidding? The same 10 whiners *DID* say that stuff... ad nauseum

[FlyingSquirrel]

41. I counted 61 "whiners" in Skinner's original thread,

as opposed to 83 "Rah-Rah'ers" and 24 "Let's wait and see'ers".

Not exactly the miniscule percentage of DU you're trying to project. There are just some of us "whiners" who are more vocal and persistent, and I might add that I've gotten several PM's from others who were not willing to put up with the bullying of the majority who nevertheless privately thanked me for being so vocal and persistent.

[omega minimo]

46. That's why it's called

a chilling effect.

The "majority" convinces itself that a "few whiners" just need to shut up and everything will be fine.....

[reflection]

30. Respectfully, omega,

is there anything anyone, including Skinner, could have said to bring you around on the subject? If he had used your exact verbage in his posts on the subject, would you have been ok with the unrec feature?

[omega minimo]

36. Out of all the posts on this, there was no (IMHO) discussion resembling the OP possibilities

I read Skinner's OP a few times. I wasn't looking to him or some official for a different statment, unless it was more specific about the need and how many of us didn't know there was a problem, bothering who?...........



Those were questions that those DUers aware of it might have answered and didn't, even when requested directly. It was a slapfight, almost immediately.

This OP is suggesting that when the announcement brought out evident hostility of DUers toward each other and belligerent glee at having a passive/aggressive way to feel in control, there might have been some more moderated voices and opinions, than the predominance of "Us vs. Them."

That's what I'm not in favor of. Though, like the UnRec tool, it may be here to stay.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Someone could grow up and get over it.

[KatyMan]

34. Someone could also ask for cheese

with that whine....

[omega minimo]

37. or ham.

At least some humor would help.

[KatyMan]

42. perhaps.

:toast:

cheers...

[omega minimo]

45. with some uppity

Dijon mustard :thumbsup:

[KatyMan]

49. If I'm anything I'm uppity.

:) Happy to admit it. I'm sure I have reason to be. :P

[omega minimo]

50. Then perhaps

Would you have some Grey Poupon?

[KatyMan]

52. but of course

...

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. One person's "polarizing" is another person's "interesting" n/t

[omega minimo]

44. Well put. Reality is good, too.